Posted
by
CmdrTacoon Thursday February 05, 2009 @09:39AM
from the ok-that's-awesome dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft founder turned philanthropist Bill Gates released a glass full of mosquitoes at an elite Technology, Entertainment, Design Conference to make a point about the deadly sting of malaria.
'Malaria is spread by mosquitoes,' Gates said while opening a jar on stage at a gathering known to attract technology kings, politicians, and Hollywood stars.
'I brought some. Here I'll let them roam around. There is no reason only poor people should be infected.'" Say what you will about the guy, that is showmanship. Well done.

Most people are allergic. Why do you think they itch when you get bit?

Because that's a normal immune reaction to an antigen entering the body? Now, if you start itching all over your body from a single mosquito bite and/or have trouble breathing because your airways are swelling shut... then you have an actual allergic reaction.

He said "there's no reason only poor people should be infected", not "there's no reason only poor people are elected". Poor people did nothing to deserve being infected.

Secondly, Bill Gate's little show had a lot more of a point than PETA getting naked. Whereas the latter is merely a publicity stunt, Gate's maneuver also serves to make potentially rich donors uncomfortable with the idea of the suffering of others by experiencing a small part of it. Nothing about PETA getting naked serves this sort of purpose.

Lastly, I also dearly hope that Bill Gate's political leanings aren't whats preventing you from otherwise helping to stop the spread of malaria...

I think Al Gore plans on having a volcano erupt in downtown Manhattan to emphasize that ecological disasters are not just some fringe pacific "ring of fire" problem, but I hear he's having trouble getting a permit from the city.

As someone who researches Malaria for a living I must wholeheartedly support the funding that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is bringing to the field of Malaria research. Malaria might only be a "poor" person disease but it affects tens of millions of people a year. Even on a selfish note, with global warming creeping up on us in the next few decades, perhaps this pre-emptive strike by the West will save us all getting sick in the long run.

He gives a few billion dollars each year to a foundation that he has control over. Essentially, he gives a few billion dollars each year to himself, and a few million out of that to very urgent causes.

The Gates Foundation only gives away 5% of its value every year. The rest is re-invested to maximise profit.

By transferring his wealth to a foundation, Gates has managed to:

a) minimise his tax liabilitiesb) maintain control of his wealth (and use it in support of his fight against free software and generic drugs)c) invest in restoring his reputation (which, for those with short memories, was damaged by his involvement in criminal behaviour )

Furthermore, investigations have found that the Foundation's attitude to ethical investment to be lacking.

As far as I know everyone on American land thats not indian: red skin or brown skin, it's a foreigner and should behave. System you talk about was created by the white man Spaniards and British.. If you're poor and white you are just out of luck.. If you're black and poor you're a potential criminal, If you're Latino and poor you command your daughter to lock in the house and pay 5 USD to the guy to fix random stuff. Flamebaitish maybe.. out of touch with reality not so much. Reality is a Flamebait soup for poor people, ironic that they always get moderated down on top of that.

and more on topic: Maybe, just maybe, if Gates could do something for poor nations so they don't have to pay up to 5 minimum wages to run a computer.. that money would go to health care.

Though I surely sympathize with poor white people, and am saddened by the state of all those struggling to get by, statistics show they suffer less than their counterparts in terms of law prosecution. Racism still exists (I need only listen to my father-in-law rant...), though I hope one day everyone sees race like Peter does.

Characteristics of State Prison inmates

* Women were 6.6% of the State prison inmates in 2001, up from 6% in 1995.
* Sixty-four percent of prison inmates belonged to racial or ethnic minorities in 2001.
* An estimated 57% of inmates were under age 35 in 2001.
* About 4% of State prison inmates were not U.S. citizens at yearend 2001.
* About 6% of State prison inmates were held in private facilities at yearend 2001.
* Altogether, an estimated 57% of inmates had a high school diploma or its equivalent.
* Among the State prison inmates in 2000:

-- nearly half were sentenced for a violent crime (49%)
-- a fifth were sentenced for a property crime (20%)
-- about a fifth were sentenced for a drug crime (21%)

Put into contrast by:

The U.S. population's distribution by race and ethnicity in 2006 was as follows:[30][31]

Only one species of mosquitoes actually transmit malaria to humans; the Anopheles. Interesting stunt to scare the uninformed, but most likely more harmless than, say, releasing Windows 7 to the unsuspecting masses.

It's still an allergic reaction. One is local (and normal) the other is systemic and severe. The first time you are ever bitten by a mosquito it wont itch. It takes time to develop an immune reaction to recognize it as foreign. Second time around- itch. Some insects have toxins in there bite that release histamine- those reactions are instantaneous and can also be systemic and don't require immunity.

Where does it say that the rich have to give up what they have/earned/have been knocked down (in some instances many times)/posses just to make a bunch of liberals happy or feel better ?

Maybe you should move to a communist country if you really feel so bad or better yet move your hippy ass to the location of said poor instead of bitching and whining about the hand picked causes you choose to cry about.

The wealthy are not solely responsible for the world's poor and consider how many of the worlds poor would be much better off if they would do simple things such as... move the hell out of the desert instead of sticking around bitching about, heat, lack of water, unable to grow crops...

Some times you have to be run over by the clue bus to understand that there isn't always going to be a bunch of liberal losers who will rally to get you what you need/want and a lot of wealthy people got that way by "appreciating the view" themselves.

My bet is you are one of the many zOmbies who voted for Nobama and are about to see that change for the better doesn't always result from liberal beliefs and sympathizing.

The article you linked to, "DDT, facts vs. fears", is a publication by the "American Council on Science and Health", which appears to be a typical corporate apologist front group. It has nothing whatsoever to do with UNL (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) despite being hosted at a poorly configured MacOS X server there.

If you want to know the real facts about DDT, the Wikipedia entry for it is excellent and rather more complete than the above article. The reality, as always, is more complex than iconoclasts on either side of any debate would have it. DDT is at best a part of any strategy against malaria... by itself it could only provide temporary relief (since mosquitoes become resistant to it) at high cost in human and environmental health.

Also DDT is NOT banned around the world. It was banned in the US, and with time many other countries either also banned it or simply discontinued its use, each for their own reasons. DDT is also cheap enough and easy enough to produce that all but the poorest of poor countries can make all they need themselves if they chose to use it.

There is no Global DDT Ban. Due to overuse in America we ended up poising ourselves (basically when we were to spread it, the scientists/instructions said use 1 bag, the spreader used 10 bags, to be sure.)

DDT is still legal to use in Africa, and in fact, is being used. Its one of the most cost efficient methods at controlling Malaria. Its just more highly monitored than it was before (due to people using way too much.)

Go hit your wiki's, and find out more about the great DDT Myth, FUD brought to you by the anti-environmental movement, and embraced by the USA.

I used to believe that. Turns out there wasn't any hard evidence; the DDT ban came about almost wholly due to Rachel Carson's bestselling book SILENT SPRING, which has since been discredited as having no scientific basis. (And yes, I've read the book.)

Summary: 1978 study shows no evidence of carcinogenicity in technical-grade DDT, TDE, and DDE in diet of mice and rats [a fact conveniently cited out of context by a variety of pro-DDT publications]; 1991 study shows oral administration of breakdown products DDE and TDE show definite carcinogenicity in hamsters, some groups (by gender and species) of mice and rats (something that was also shown in part in the 1978 study).

As such, despite insufficient evidence in humans (primarily due to heavy confounding of epidemiological data by other pesticides) it is classified as "Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen".

There are labs, where they provide these kinds of animals. In lieu of convincing evidence to the contrary the reasonable assumption is the Bill Gates had a flunky call a lab, say "I'd like two dozen biting but non-infectious mosquitoes - they will be released into the open air as part of a PR stunt so it's important they be non-infectious."; and delivered said mosquitoes.

This is *less* dangerous than if he were talking about Bubonic Plague and released lab mice - the mice would chew on wiring.